Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It's a very good thing! And it's exactly what EVE is all about. Those "rejects" are going to band together, work together, get up to speed and when they're ready to earn their little bit of SOV, they're going to have a big grudge.

More conflicts is what is needed! Otherwise we have huge corporations and alliances that are all blued up and there is no content.



Awesome. AWOXing is a thing in EVE. Safari's are a thing. Spies are a thing. Sounds like emergent gameplay to me.




No. I specifically outlined that a player has to be in space and vulnerable. So not behind POS shields and not cloaked.

And they're going to suck at it. What you're actually doing is excluding them from null. The people who have their act together are not going to be threatened by a group of lemmings.

Yes, and your system doesn't promote more conflict. Right now, the sov system encourages defenders (timers) and discourages attackers (grinding). Your proposed system encourages attackers and discourages defenders. We need a system that encourages both attacker and defender.

You are completely missing the point, as this isn't AWOXing, Safaring, or Spying. This is subverting your mechanic to generate the exact opposite outcome that you supposedly want. Again, alliances with experience will be impossible to root out, and new entities will never break in.

If you are cloaked, you're still vulnerable as you can be decloaked. But fine. Safe spotted with ECCM; un-probe-able fit. Same outcome.

What is your purpose? Do you want the Null sec population limited further, or do you want it expanded? Personally, I want more people in Null sec; there's a lot of empty space. That's why I don't like your idea.

Again, you fail to understand. In your system, you "defend" your station by not losing ships. In other words, you discourage the defenders from creating content. *This* *Is* *Bad*

Your suggestion for station content being lootable is also terrible, as terrible as CCP's idea of station loot spew after destruction, but that's an essay on its own.

Not happening, as the station was alliance hopped a month ago. All those "somethings" are now useless. But the big blocks thank you for making their stations unassailable.

Or are you saying that these "somethings" continue to be useful even after a station has switched? Well, now present alliances will have the easiest time in retaking their systems.

You got me; I've been running down your idea to promote my own idea, which I haven't even presented and no one knows about. It was a brilliant plan, was it not?

I wouldn't implement it, as it's a bad concept.

That is interesting, as my understanding is just need a sensor strength 1.08x your sig radius, which a cov-ops can accomplish with a single ECCM module. Do you have a source for this?

And if it's not easy to just place alts to game the concept, then gaming the system will also be necessary for those playing 'legitimately' to eliminate the NPCs. That's the nature of the beast.

Don't defend from what? After all: "Do away with shooting POS's and introduce the same hacking concept as outlined above." Hacking's it, remember? If I deny you wrecks, I deny you the ability to hack, I deny you the ability to take my station.

Then by all means, tackle it. I've found the fatal flaw in your proposal. I've also found the flaw in the obvious possible solution. This needs fixing now before it's even considered. So, fix it.

Just because you have proposed an easily exploited system that will make the current mechanic worse, it does not mean that I have to propose anything else. The only measurement that matters is, is your idea better than the status quo? The attitude "Something must be done! This is something! It must be done!" has done far more damage than it ever fixed.

Thank you. That is valuable information.

I'm starting to become convinced that you are trolling me. The whole reason we discussed "un-probe-able" ships is because I suggested a concept that does exactly what you just challenged me to do and you countered that with "to easy to exploit because ships can be un-probe-able".

Now that we established that there is no such thing as un-probe-able anymore, I will re-iterate the solution I have already suggested, so you don't have to go back and find it, because ~effort~.

Things to establish:

1) In order to conquer SOV (in my proposed system), you have to hack whatever establishes SOV in that system.
2) The strength of your hack is obtained from "things" you loot from enemy wrecks.

"The Komi Problem":

a) Players can dock up, log off, change corps, whatever to game the concept, denying the ability to loot the "things" that are needed to hack.

The Solution, Again:

There will always be a minimum amount of "targets" that can drop those "things". As long as players are not in game and vulnerable in space, the game will spawn NPC (a new smarter kind of NPC, see my original suggestion) that will have a % chance to drop these "things". Given a set number of "targets", these NPC's will spawn to make up the difference. Here's an example:

Given the completely arbitrary number, pulled out of the air which does not imply a final balanced solution, of 20:

- When there are 10 players in space that are vulnerable, then there will be 10 NPC's in the home system spawned.
- When there are zero players in space that are vulnerable, then there will be 20 NPC's in the home system spawned.
- When there are 15 players in space that are vulnerable, then there will be 5 NPC's in the home system, spawned.
- When there are 20 players in space that are vulnerable, then there will be zero NPC's in the home system, spawned.
- When there are 25 players in space that are vulnerable, then there will be zero NPC's in the home system, spawned.

What is vulnerable?

- The player must be:

1) Undocked and probe-able
2) Not behind a POS shield
3) not in Hi-Sec
4) any other condition that is required to make the solution solid.